Justice Under Trump Dances to the Tune of Falsehood (1)

By Somaya Sayed

Upon returning from the Gulf countries, Trump found no better way to reward the UAE for its hospitality than to approve its request to discipline Sudan by imposing new sanctions—hoping that Sudan might back down after its armed forces humiliated the UAE, exposed its role in the war, and left its reputation stained with the blood of the Sudanese people.

Indeed, just two days ago, the United States announced that it would impose sanctions on Sudan after the “confirmation” that its government used chemical weapons in 2024 during the conflict with the Rapid Support Forces militia.

When justice becomes selective, the world turns into what we are witnessing today—nations with influence are able to tip the scales and ignore the voice of truth, dressing justice in a different robe for each country depending on its status, financial clout, and the bribes it offers.

There are several failures—or rather, clear weaknesses—in the miserable American decision, especially in its attempt to establish this accusation, including:

1. Lack of an independent and transparent international investigation:
The American accusations were made without an independent, expanded international investigation. This raises questions about the evidence, how it was gathered, and how it was verified—making the accusations appear unfounded, even described as “false” and “political blackmail.”

2. Absence of specific, accurate details:
The U.S. did not clearly specify when, where, or how these chemical weapons were used, nor how many victims there were. This lack of detail undermines the credibility of the allegations in the eyes of experts and those working in the field of verifying the use of internationally banned weapons.

3. The timing and political context of the accusations:
Many see the timing of these allegations—particularly after significant military advances by the Sudanese army and the complete collapse of the RSF on all fronts—as politically motivated. The goal may be to pressure the Sudanese government and prevent its military resolution, which is gaining momentum to liberate every inch of Sudanese territory. The U.S. claim of “protecting human rights” appears hollow. The move is now seen as a political tool to maintain a “tense balance” between the advancing armed forces and the entry of political forces aligned with the UAE, including the Taqaddum and Sumood parties. This hypothesis is supported by documented press reports citing congressional members referencing data from civilian forces allied with international actors seeking to stop the war.

4. Reliance on journalistic reports instead of scientific investigations:
The weakest point in the American decision is its dependence on media reports rather than expert or scientific bodies specializing in fact-finding. All American claims about the Sudanese army’s use of chemical weapons were based on unnamed American sources. For example, The New York Times cited four senior American officials claiming Sudan used chemical weapons, but such journalistic reporting is not considered conclusive evidence in international forums—especially as the article failed to clarify whether these officials were political figures or technical experts.

5. Lack of sufficient communication with the Sudanese government:
The U.S. did not adequately engage with the Sudanese government to present evidence or discuss the allegations before announcing the sanctions, which violates the principles of verification and impartial investigation.

6. A pattern of recurring, politically motivated accusations:
This is not the first time Sudan has been accused by the U.S. of using chemical weapons. In 2016, Amnesty International claimed to have “credible evidence” of such use in Darfur, but those claims were never conclusively proven by independent international bodies. That case died a clinical death, only to be revived now with similar political motives—this time driven by more aggressive and violent regional and international powers led by the UAE.

In general, the failures lie in the lack of strong and transparent evidence through recognized international investigation channels. As a result, these accusations are widely viewed in Sudan and by many observers as part of a political agenda rather than being grounded in irrefutable, objective facts.